nac

It usually means Evil as a "side" or alignment fundamentally opposed to Good, like in Abrahamic and old Persian religions. If you're not "for good", then you're "for evil".

BTW in the Vajrayana tradition, women are called wisdom holders and disparaging them is considered one of the one of the fourteen root downfalls of a tantric practitioner. Here are a few online samples of Great Bliss Queen literature: http://www.zangthal.co.uk/files.html Judge it for yourself. For example, see the 5th and 8th texts.

Awesome! I'm not averse to words like "evil" as long as we're clear on the definitions of our terms.

I've never believed in evil. Like the Buddha, I think it's a sacred duty of all sentient beings to minimize the suffering of others whenever the opportunity presents itself. Ignoring this moral obligation doesn't make people evil, merely deluded as to the causes of happiness and dissatisfaction, not to mention their own nature. Come to think of it, my biggest problem with religious Taoism is probably animal sacrifice to the Taoist gods. (or is that folk Taoism? ) Moral dualism is a close second though.

While everyone's posting their personal opinions: The belief in metaphysical evil is my biggest problem with religious Taoism. It's a shame it isn't non-dual like philosophical Taoism.

Are we talking about experiences of enlightenment or enlightened action? Yes, there have been hundreds of independent studies on meditative techniques. See papers like: http://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/s4/f2/...p04/MQ57700.pdf Regardless of all that, attaining some form of "enlightenment" for oneself isn't all that matters you know. Certainly not in the long run.

Hey there, MettaFuture. Hope you're doing well!

drewhempel: Just as philosophical study can't help everybody on their spiritual paths, I don't think just anyone can achieve nibbana by sweeping monasteries or living like Kalahari bushmen either. Skillfulness is highly subjective. Don't get me started. Mandala visualization may not improve IQ scores, but I'm pretty certain about what decreases it...

Depending on your definition, the mind shouldn't be confused with the entirety of subjective phenomena arising co-dependently with objective phenomena. Objective "reality" bears little resemblance to the way our senses report it.

As subjective phenomena, mind and matter arise interdependently upon each other.

I haven't, I took the post on face value. Well, I don't pretend that it's a part of my spiritual practice, but I sit full lotus whenever I'm at home. I'm doing it right now. (minus the hands of course) PS. Okay, let's see: Yeah, I've heard of this book alright. You Americans have no idea how good you have it. Besides, any country without a Bollywood is paradise IMHO.

When in doubt, remember that both camps are often wrong, dishonest or at least partial to their own experiences/agenda without consideration for that of the other party. I suggest studying by yourself for a while to make up your own mind. The Vajarayana tradition suggests browsing teachers for at least 10 years before picking one to study tantra with. If your tantra teacher is dishonest, it's very difficult to escape from his clutches. I'm not averse to the idea, I just think this statement needs a LOT of qualification before it starts making sense.

Okay, so what do you do after you soothe his or her mind with drum beats? We can't even know how he is feeling. Maybe such a technique exists somewhere, but I don't know of such means. Don't despair, you are a Buddha too. This is the reason we're all endowed with Buddha-nature. Perhaps by using advanced technology, we can overcome the need for communication by directly scanning the condition of his brain? I meant every word what I said.

If you can find a skillful technique to fully enlighten someone through nothing but vibration, they go ahead by all means...

drewhempel: You're aware that tantric practice revolves around cultivating pure view, right? For example, I think American games (eg. DnD, WH40K or video games) can end up serving as tantra that reinforces, say, the Judeo-Christian worldview if they're well made and played with single-minded dedication. Different kinds of tantra can reinforce different views on the practitioner, so the view upon which the tantra is based is very important. In fact, this ultimate view is the whole point of tantric meditation as I understand it. Once you pick your highest tantric view, (based on your scientific understanding, philosophical preferences, etc) all other views are supposed to revolve around it, so you can automatically classify all your experiences according to the "level of tantra" they correspond to, so to speak, with respect to your chosen "highest view". What's the point of deluding yourself with tantra for tantra's sake? You seem to be assuming the existence of this "wordless awareness" (inadvertently picking your view) then basing your understanding of every spiritual tradition upon this accidental presumption. This can't be right.... It feels like a ridiculous misunderstanding on my part.

...or music for that matter. If someone is deaf, blind and mute at the same time, I don't think it's possible to attain very high in this lifetime. Otherwise there are always means...

There's no use complaining, I'm going to try it anyway. Here goes nothing... This is simply untrue, or rather, it's what James Randi calls 'woo'. It's similar to the claims that mandala meditation raises one's IQ. It doesn't. Granting meditation causes supernatural powers, (which isn't true IMO) what do powers have to do with liberation anyway? Pythagoras ran a cult based on mathematics that tried to suppress the knowledge of irrational numbers. Calling him a loony is an insult to loonies worldwide. Okay, but all this depends on what your goal is. I mean, it's true you can attain nibbana by sweeping, but if you're saying that: avoiding true philosophical and scientific understanding is a good thing, it's helpful not to know things in the long run, or living like primitive tribes is conducive to reducing suffering, then I disagree with you. I'll bet even Taoist masters will disagree with you there. I once read a book by a Russian Taoist doctor who felt genuinely sorry for people living in primitive societies. You rely on sound effects for attaining what, precisely? Buddhism isn't concerned with gaining supernatural powers at all.

...it probably fell off like a dry husk...

I'm more of a fan of Diogenes, actually. I hope you won't take it amiss if I told you to temper your enthusiasm with some critical thinking. (and maybe a little philosophical study as well?) I have no intention of offending you, but there's really no way to respond rationally to posts like this, sorry.

Isn't this in the same level as the black-hole-in-the-brain theories in New Age?

The lay men and lay women feeding the monks and nuns, you mean. Are you sure about everything you've said here? BTW The majority of the Taiwanese Sangha is composed of nuns. Ask Shi Hong Yang in E-Sangha if you don't believe me.

There are many female lamas in Tibet, India and the west. I'm sure there must be several female Taoist masters too. Are you saying that full-lotus meditation alone can result in complete enlightenment without any philosophical study whatsoever? If you want to answer my questions, you can send me a PM if you like.

I believe in the existence of breath. I agree that many kinds of advancement happen in alternating progression and regression. I just don't think breath control gives people supernatural powers: http://scienceblogs.com/neurotopia/2007/10...tial_idiocy.php

drewhempel: In the west, a lot more women practice eastern traditions than men.

No, that's not true. I'm sorry for giving a false impression. For most tribes, all members other than the chief probably starve together. (Hawai'ians, for instance, used to starve voluntarily to keep the Ali'i Nui fat and the mana flowing) PS. In fact, there wasn't any connection with what you said at all. The statements in that post are stand-alone.